| Accounts 23:34 - Feb 11 with 19592 views | leedsdale |
|  | | |  |
| Accounts on 23:51 - Feb 11 with 7754 views | kiwidale |
Somebody better qualified than me needs to highlight these accounts but What it tells me is that Dunphy and Hill had let the expenses run away to an unsustainable level. It also tells me that this was the reason Dunphy was ousted quickly followed by Hill. Those on here that question David Bottomleys stewardship and business acumen need to understand he had to act and act fast. Bottomley's quote that the United money would only cover 3 months wasn't far off based on us losing 23 thousand pounds a week. [Post edited 12 Feb 2020 0:05]
|  |
| This is not the time for bickering.
|
| |
| Accounts on 00:26 - Feb 12 with 7689 views | oddjob007 |
Wow. Some interesting stuff here.
Revenue down £600k
- digital tv and broadcasting down £400k - presume Spurs games drive this?
- transfer fees up £300k - who did we sell for a million last year?! Rafferty? Cannon?
- gate receipts down £200k - probably a mix of fewer northern clubs and a poor season?
- prize money down £150k - assume FA Cup linked.
- sponsorship down £150k - worrying one this, unless we had stuff tied to the cup run, but don’t recall.
Salaries up £350k but 11 less staff.
Player transfer fee amortisation up £40k. Additions to intangible assets (likely players) £73k. Who did we buy?
Creditors - accruals and deferred income up to £700k from £60k... wonder what this relates to? Assume sell on clauses?
Cash in the bank dropped hugely from £1.1m to £400k.. thank fook for the good runs this season! [Post edited 12 Feb 2020 0:29]
| | | |
| Accounts on 01:03 - Feb 12 with 7653 views | 49thseason |
A major weak link seems to be the reliance on tv and cup monies which can only really be considered as a bonus. Its also sobering to realise that selling Matheson only underwrites the losses for about 12 months.
The focus now needs to turn to increasing ticket sales and developing new, sustainable income streams outside the usual 3000 faithful fans. We own the ground now and the Ratcliffe but are these assets being sweated as hard as they might be? The fans forum may teĺl us more... or not. We have to presume the weekly losses have been reduced somewhat because the squad is smaller and younger, the question is "by how much" . Hopefully the bank account has been / will be topped up by the Dawson and Matheson money [Post edited 12 Feb 2020 1:04]
|  | | |
| Accounts on 01:13 - Feb 12 with 7641 views | Sandyman |
Also interesting that these accounts are out in the public domain the week before a Fans Forum, but have yet to be seen or signed off by shareholders. Shareholders used to receive the accounts first and asked not to share the details online. |  | | |
| Accounts on 01:21 - Feb 12 with 7628 views | KenBoon |
I think the time to focus on increasing numbers through the turnstiles was 20 years ago. It has been ignored in favour on youth development. The only thing 'the chur' ever got right was when asked about targets for attendances he always discounted the away numbers. Gate and season ticket money should be the bread and butter of any sporting club. It is something that can be pretty much guaranteed... well apart from the fickle ones.
The billboards are lovely but what use are they when the regular support talk down the club so much. I get bored of hearing "well someone has gotta support them" and similar when folk say they support Rochdale. We're not shit anymore. We've been a progressive club for (rounding up) 25 years. That's six world cups. Why do we as support even acknowledge the shitty old days (outside of the old reminiscing stuff). We've had England internationals playing FOR US. One of them even played at the world cup! I don't wanna rant because it'd get OT. |  | | |
| Accounts on 04:24 - Feb 12 with 7587 views | RAFCBLUE |
| Accounts on 01:13 - Feb 12 by Sandyman |
Also interesting that these accounts are out in the public domain the week before a Fans Forum, but have yet to be seen or signed off by shareholders. Shareholders used to receive the accounts first and asked not to share the details online. |
Hi Sandyman,
Accounts only need to be approved by the Board of Directors, not the shareholders.
Shareholders get to vote at the AGM on if the accept the accounts.
It is odd that for 25 years the shareholders see the accounts first but not this year.
I hope those shareholders and those going to the fans forum give our CEO a good questioning of what is really going on. |  |
| |
| Accounts on 04:45 - Feb 12 with 7574 views | RAFCBLUE |
My three key observations on these terrible numbers:
1. I think it cost us circa £650k for sacking Hill & Beech. In note 14 “Creditors due within one year” we have increase our Accruals and Deferred Income from £59,108 in May 2018 to £700,806 in May 2019.
Accruals are a non specifically attributed liability and this will go in a year as we have now paid Hill & Beech their settlements. Hill & Beech has not settled with the club as at 31 May 2018. It’s also cash that we will have paid this season; so our cup runs and player sales have effectively not stayed in the club.
2. Adjusting for the Hill & Beech one off cost we lost circa £600k, which is down to reduced revenue and wages and salaries that were up £350k. The bigger budget Hill was given by the Board of that season did not produce an equivalent improvement in league position.
3. If this was bury football club we’d have scoffed. Some very strong questions need to be asked and answered about what really went on within the Board and more importantly where we are now.
The sales of Adshead and Mathewson now look like fire sales and goodness only knows where we would be without those two Cup windfalls.
Worst of all, for me, these results were known when the original fans forum was cancelled in January.
If our CEO and others think they can dodge being properly held to account they will be making a huge error of judgement. | |
| |
| Accounts (n/t) on 05:33 - Feb 12 with 7548 views | AussieDale |
| | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Accounts on 05:42 - Feb 12 with 7536 views | AussieDale |
| Accounts on 04:45 - Feb 12 by RAFCBLUE |
My three key observations on these terrible numbers:
1. I think it cost us circa £650k for sacking Hill & Beech. In note 14 “Creditors due within one year” we have increase our Accruals and Deferred Income from £59,108 in May 2018 to £700,806 in May 2019.
Accruals are a non specifically attributed liability and this will go in a year as we have now paid Hill & Beech their settlements. Hill & Beech has not settled with the club as at 31 May 2018. It’s also cash that we will have paid this season; so our cup runs and player sales have effectively not stayed in the club.
2. Adjusting for the Hill & Beech one off cost we lost circa £600k, which is down to reduced revenue and wages and salaries that were up £350k. The bigger budget Hill was given by the Board of that season did not produce an equivalent improvement in league position.
3. If this was bury football club we’d have scoffed. Some very strong questions need to be asked and answered about what really went on within the Board and more importantly where we are now.
The sales of Adshead and Mathewson now look like fire sales and goodness only knows where we would be without those two Cup windfalls.
Worst of all, for me, these results were known when the original fans forum was cancelled in January.
If our CEO and others think they can dodge being properly held to account they will be making a huge error of judgement. |
I'm a little confused. You state that the current board and CEO need to be held to account. The evidence seems to suggest that the board and CEO from the hill/dunphy days are the ones who should be held to account and that the current board and CEO have been left to clean up the mess. Which version is correct. | | | |
| Accounts on 05:54 - Feb 12 with 7514 views | Nigeriamark |
| Accounts on 05:42 - Feb 12 by AussieDale |
I'm a little confused. You state that the current board and CEO need to be held to account. The evidence seems to suggest that the board and CEO from the hill/dunphy days are the ones who should be held to account and that the current board and CEO have been left to clean up the mess. Which version is correct. |
You are correct, this is the last set of figures under the Dunphy/Hill leadership. The current board took over Nov/Dec that year but as most contracts are set at the beginning of the year there is not so much they could have done to influence the financials. 2019/20 will be the first set of accounts where the current board can show what they have done.
Instead of waiting 12 months, they have the right to produce a draft set of results probably as early as June this year & at the forum I would suggest someone make this request |  | | |
| Accounts on 05:58 - Feb 12 with 7498 views | D_Alien |
| Accounts on 05:42 - Feb 12 by AussieDale |
I'm a little confused. You state that the current board and CEO need to be held to account. The evidence seems to suggest that the board and CEO from the hill/dunphy days are the ones who should be held to account and that the current board and CEO have been left to clean up the mess. Which version is correct. |
You beat me to it. Whilst I've little time for our CEO/board member for other reasons, the fault for our current predicament can hardly be laid at his door, although its also vital to question how the current regime operates
The error of logic in RAFCBLUE's post suggests an ulterior motive. We can all do without hidden agendas, whether it applies in his case or not |  |
| |
| Accounts on 06:49 - Feb 12 with 7439 views | RAFCBLUE |
| Accounts on 05:42 - Feb 12 by AussieDale |
I'm a little confused. You state that the current board and CEO need to be held to account. The evidence seems to suggest that the board and CEO from the hill/dunphy days are the ones who should be held to account and that the current board and CEO have been left to clean up the mess. Which version is correct. |
https://www.rochdaleafc.co.uk/news/2015/july/new-director-welcomed-onto-dale-boa
Unless I’m mistaken, was our current CEO not on the Board From July 2015 throughout the Dunphy / Hill period to which you are referring?
He is reasonably vocal in the media but silent on this. We don’t hear public ally from the Chairman.
For me, there now needs to be a full explanation by someone about what happened and what the current financial status of the club is.
Have those scale of losses been stemmed or is the club still losing £23k a week?
The “mess” that Dunphy / Hill created over 10 years is a solvent League 1 club. We are probably about to lose Henderson and possibly Camps for nothing in the Summer.
As I said in an earlier post if this was bury losing £23k a week we would be scoffing.
Very worrying times. | |
| |
| Accounts on 06:52 - Feb 12 with 7431 views | RAFCBLUE |
| Accounts on 05:58 - Feb 12 by D_Alien |
You beat me to it. Whilst I've little time for our CEO/board member for other reasons, the fault for our current predicament can hardly be laid at his door, although its also vital to question how the current regime operates
The error of logic in RAFCBLUE's post suggests an ulterior motive. We can all do without hidden agendas, whether it applies in his case or not |
Same question to you DA - Unless I’m mistaken, was our current CEO not on the Board From July 2015 throughout the Dunphy / Hill period to which you are referring?
Could not give a monkeys about the personalities.
I am very concerned that we lose £23k a week last season vs what I suspect is coming on the playing side in the Summer. | |
| |
| Accounts on 07:04 - Feb 12 with 7392 views | D_Alien |
| Accounts on 06:52 - Feb 12 by RAFCBLUE |
Same question to you DA - Unless I’m mistaken, was our current CEO not on the Board From July 2015 throughout the Dunphy / Hill period to which you are referring?
Could not give a monkeys about the personalities.
I am very concerned that we lose £23k a week last season vs what I suspect is coming on the playing side in the Summer. |
For someone who claims to he "very worried" about losses of £23k a week - as if anyone wouldn't be - I still question what your motivation is for persistent and lengthy diatribes on the same subject, but little else
When did you last see us play? If you live abroad, or are otherwise indisposed, fair enough
Edit: neither is it about "personalities" but rather more substantial issues such as previous business activity, the dual role, and claiming publicly to be the "owner" of the club
[Post edited 12 Feb 2020 7:31]
| |
| |
| Accounts on 08:16 - Feb 12 with 7255 views | dawlishdale |
Very worrying set of figures, but, as always, they only tell the story as at a particular day; i.e at the end of our last accounting period.
A few points of interest:
TV money down from nearly £500k to just £36k
League & FA moneys paid to us is nearly double the total we get from all gate monies (£1.5m from League & FA money, compared to just £826k from gate receipts)
The Directors loan accounts are almost repaid ( £21k outstanding; down from almost £25k the previous year. Not large amounts, but interesting to note.
Accruals and deferred income: Up from £59k to a huge £700k. This is money due to us within the next year... Not sure what it refers to? Possibly transfer fees to be paid in instalments?
Transfer fees received shows as £1m.
Club shop income down. Bar income roughly stable. Worryingly, sponsorship income down from £500k to £350k Surely this shouldn't be happening?
Only 2 Directors served for the full accounting period: Bottomley and Rawlinson.
The Board say that the £1.2m loss is a result of reduced prize monies and TV braodcasting revenue (this isn't in our control) and increased wages (this most certainly IS within control)
All this is openly available at Companies House. Some serious questions need asking/answering at the forum. it isn't clear from the figures just what an impact sacking and paying off Hill/Beech has had financially.
All in all, a horrible set of accounts. Also , quite worrying that they have not been signed off by the Chairman, who appears less and less visible around the club recently and is certainly not leading from the top. | | | |
| Accounts on 10:20 - Feb 12 with 7052 views | jonahwhereru |
| Accounts on 04:24 - Feb 12 by RAFCBLUE |
Hi Sandyman,
Accounts only need to be approved by the Board of Directors, not the shareholders.
Shareholders get to vote at the AGM on if the accept the accounts.
It is odd that for 25 years the shareholders see the accounts first but not this year.
I hope those shareholders and those going to the fans forum give our CEO a good questioning of what is really going on. |
RAFC, are you ok, or are you suffering with your sleep or something.
Love that fans are prepared to invest time scrutinising than finances, but take care of your health. We can afford to wait a few hours for your views, I don’t need updates in the middle of the night. Sometimes it’s good to sleep on it. | | | |
| Accounts on 10:26 - Feb 12 with 7028 views | D_Alien |
| Accounts on 10:20 - Feb 12 by jonahwhereru |
RAFC, are you ok, or are you suffering with your sleep or something.
Love that fans are prepared to invest time scrutinising than finances, but take care of your health. We can afford to wait a few hours for your views, I don’t need updates in the middle of the night. Sometimes it’s good to sleep on it. |
Or he may be living in a different time zone... | |
| |
| Accounts on 10:40 - Feb 12 with 7009 views | ParkinsGimp |
TV money will be down along with crowds because our "product" is not very entertaining.
Dumbo/Hill really took us for a ride , yes we enjoyed brilliant success but at what expense...
I think it was well managed until the ego got too much and Dumbo just "enjoyed the ride"
I cant see how we can increase crowds or get TV companies to put on our games when we play as we do?
To the usual Dale fans who say " well we are punching above our weight" etc , no we are not we are here for a reason, we earned it. Now we must fight for it. That will be very difficult seeing these figures and I dont have any answers because I'm not immersed 24/7 in the football world to know about personnel . What I do know is that if we go down , we really are in trouble . | | | |
| Accounts on 11:40 - Feb 12 with 6907 views | Shun |
| Accounts on 04:45 - Feb 12 by RAFCBLUE |
My three key observations on these terrible numbers:
1. I think it cost us circa £650k for sacking Hill & Beech. In note 14 “Creditors due within one year” we have increase our Accruals and Deferred Income from £59,108 in May 2018 to £700,806 in May 2019.
Accruals are a non specifically attributed liability and this will go in a year as we have now paid Hill & Beech their settlements. Hill & Beech has not settled with the club as at 31 May 2018. It’s also cash that we will have paid this season; so our cup runs and player sales have effectively not stayed in the club.
2. Adjusting for the Hill & Beech one off cost we lost circa £600k, which is down to reduced revenue and wages and salaries that were up £350k. The bigger budget Hill was given by the Board of that season did not produce an equivalent improvement in league position.
3. If this was bury football club we’d have scoffed. Some very strong questions need to be asked and answered about what really went on within the Board and more importantly where we are now.
The sales of Adshead and Mathewson now look like fire sales and goodness only knows where we would be without those two Cup windfalls.
Worst of all, for me, these results were known when the original fans forum was cancelled in January.
If our CEO and others think they can dodge being properly held to account they will be making a huge error of judgement. |
Will you be attending the Fans’ Forum? |  | | |
| Accounts on 12:07 - Feb 12 with 6864 views | Plattyswrinklynuts |
Although the latest set of accounts are a concern I doubt that there is a single club in lg1 or 2 that is making a profit, mainly due to spiralling wages that wouldn’t be acceptable in any other industry for what is generally a bang average product.
Having said that certain questions need to be asked.
Does the board accept that the club will continue to make a loss for the foreseeable future?
If so, is the board able or willing to underwrite these losses?
If not, does the board expect the club to be self financing & what are it’s plans to achieve this?
One thing that does puzzle me is the drop in TV revenue, can anyone enlighten me as to what the basic payment from the EFL to league 1 clubs is per season? |  | | |
| Accounts on 13:05 - Feb 12 with 6713 views | milnrowblue |
Looking at this whole situation, it’s clear that we need to invest in the future not only on the pitch but off it.
Finding a way to pull in fans as a club with a dense amount of other clubs around us is always going to be a tough ask.
Marketing our “product” to a younger audience is arguably the only way we’re going to sustainably pick up footfall through the gates over the coming years.
A fresh outlook is needed on how the club is marketed e.g. stylish kits, match day entertainment (barring BBM ball), online presence.
We may catch the odd local fans of elite teams who slip through the net if they ever become disenchanted by top tier football, but we also have to aim to be a fresh outfit which can attract youth, rather than a small, Northern club who are just plodding along between relegation and promotion.
We have our fans to who have been with us for years and will never leave, so it’s time to expand our reach and bring in the next generation, which will of course help with revenue. | | | |
| Accounts on 13:24 - Feb 12 with 6650 views | AtThePeake |
| Accounts on 12:07 - Feb 12 by Plattyswrinklynuts |
Although the latest set of accounts are a concern I doubt that there is a single club in lg1 or 2 that is making a profit, mainly due to spiralling wages that wouldn’t be acceptable in any other industry for what is generally a bang average product.
Having said that certain questions need to be asked.
Does the board accept that the club will continue to make a loss for the foreseeable future?
If so, is the board able or willing to underwrite these losses?
If not, does the board expect the club to be self financing & what are it’s plans to achieve this?
One thing that does puzzle me is the drop in TV revenue, can anyone enlighten me as to what the basic payment from the EFL to league 1 clubs is per season? |
Is it not that the TV money from the season before came from the two televised FA Cup games against Tottenham and the televised game against Charlton on the final day of the season? |  |
| |
| Accounts on 14:05 - Feb 12 with 6549 views | judd |
Strangely enough I was expecting a significant loss but not one beyond £1m.
On the back of a £300k + loss in the preceding FY a £350k increase in playing budget was sanctioned, which appears to have gone largely on pay awards.
I would ask what the club budgeted for in terms of turnover and costs for FY 2018-19?
Was it in line with the oft reported traditional expected £400k deficit from normal trading? Clearly had some confidence with the cash at bank from the previous year to fund losses.
Interesting to see £30,000 raised through share sales. I guess this is to a new board member. Might be worthwhile considering a further share issue to the entire fan base? |  |
| |
| Accounts on 15:35 - Feb 12 with 6399 views | pioneer |
| Accounts on 14:05 - Feb 12 by judd |
Strangely enough I was expecting a significant loss but not one beyond £1m.
On the back of a £300k + loss in the preceding FY a £350k increase in playing budget was sanctioned, which appears to have gone largely on pay awards.
I would ask what the club budgeted for in terms of turnover and costs for FY 2018-19?
Was it in line with the oft reported traditional expected £400k deficit from normal trading? Clearly had some confidence with the cash at bank from the previous year to fund losses.
Interesting to see £30,000 raised through share sales. I guess this is to a new board member. Might be worthwhile considering a further share issue to the entire fan base? |
Just received electronic version of shareholder copy which we are asked to keep confidential! Rationale is some of what shareholders receive is not in the version submitted to companies house but we are not told which bits.
Another concern is large reduction in development association income...I wont mention figures in case thats the confidential bit.
Need to get back on the straight and narrow. | | | |
| Accounts on 15:39 - Feb 12 with 6386 views | judd |
| Accounts on 15:35 - Feb 12 by pioneer |
Just received electronic version of shareholder copy which we are asked to keep confidential! Rationale is some of what shareholders receive is not in the version submitted to companies house but we are not told which bits.
Another concern is large reduction in development association income...I wont mention figures in case thats the confidential bit.
Need to get back on the straight and narrow. |
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/00111019/filing-history
Download the Companies House version for free and compare with your electronic version. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
